168 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Darkwind, on 29 June 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Other than the Bible there is no documentation of Jesus. There is nothing contemperary to his time. If there is your going to have to cite it.

So now we're done with just "contemporary" and moving back to "contemporary to his time".   I'm not going to feed any further misunderstanding of what I said by citing anything of the sort.

If you're discussing historicity of Jesus, you're off topic.   Like I invited Tiggs, if you want to discuss it, put it up.  But please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say to distort meanings that I never meant.

If these Christian-baiting discussions didn't always meander off topic to wind up debasing themselves into the same flatulent denials of Jesus Christ, we could probably stay on topic a lot better.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 29 June 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

"Jesus is the most historically documented person who ever lived 2000+ years ago.   If someone feels comfortable denying the existence of Jesus they might as well deny all other history that came before it."

You can cry "Straw man" as hard as you like. But it's absolutely obvious what your intention was.

Jesus is perhaps the most historically documented person who ever lived, per the explanation that you just ignored in your latest cut and paste of my "intention".   This does not even refer to historicity for one instant like you keep pounding your head against the wall that it must.  

You can disagree with my definition of history all you like.   Your intention is seems to be to cut and paste small parts out of my replies so you can bastardize their meaning and change the subject of the OP to boot.  

If you want to know my meaning, cut the sarcastic atheist BS out and ask.  And I'll give you the same consideration.

[Yamato]

Ron Jeremy, on 29 June 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

O RLY?

And why do you chose your nick and avatar with the most disgusting thing ever existed in history?

Because I like to remind you that mankind, if left to its own devices, is disgusting indeed.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Quote

As far as I recall - Horus wasn't dismembered. That was his Father, Osiris.

Thank you, I've editied the post to correct my error. I did merge father and son incorrectly.

I do think that John's reference to the Psalm may rebut an ancient Osiris criticism. I "look past" the Horus "resurrection" criticism because, like Jairus' daughter and unlike conventional readings of Jesus, there is some doubt in the Horus story about whether the returnee actuallly died or just seemed that way to a frantic parent. In this case, I "looked past" it without adequately looking where I was going instead.

Thank you again for the heads-up catch.

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 29 June 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

I do think that John's reference to the Psalm may rebut an ancient Osiris criticism. I "look past" the Horus "resurrection" criticism because, like Jairus' daughter and unlike conventional readings of Jesus, there is some doubt in the Horus story about whether the returnee actuallly died or just seemed that way to a frantic parent. In this case, I "looked past" it without adequately looking where I was going instead.

It's been argued that Horus may have just been on the verge of Death rather than actually dead. My understanding of hieroglyphics is pretty much non-existent, so I can only argue from translations and secondary sources. Budge's translation, for example, seems to indicate fairly clearly that Horus was dead.

"it is wholly impossible for the Boat of Ra to travel across the sky whilst Horus is lying dead"

On John:

John 19

³⁶ These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
³⁷ and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

The first scripture referenced is generally thought to refer to Psalm 34:

¹⁹ The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
²⁰ he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

It's not exactly stellar Messianic prophecy. It's talking about a righteous person, and whilst Jesus was undoubtedly portrayed as righteous - it's not very Messiah specific.

So did John emphasize the no broken bones to differentiate the tale of Jesus from Osiris? Possibly, but the whole crucifixion would have been enough, I'd imagine, regardless of whether or not the Romans had broken his ankles. It's not like they dismembered his body and buried the parts in different places.

My initial  gut feel is that John was just trying to link as much as possible about the events of the Crucifixion to the Old Testament, and that it's probably just a happy coincidence.

[Yamato]

Does the originality of Horus enhance the believability of Horus?

[BorisIWantToKnow]

My first topic with 433 and views and 3 paged comments

[Yamato]

BorisIWantToKnow, on 29 June 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

My first topic with 433 and views and 3 paged comments

Does the originality of Horus provide you with belief in Horus?  

[meryt-tetisheri]

Tiggs, on 29 June 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

As an Atheist - the claims which I believe have some semblance of support are:

Horus

• Virgin Birth (If we're defining virgin to include someone who's only had sex with Gods).
  
• Healed the Sick
  
• Restored Sight
  
• Resurrected

None of them, quite honestly, fit the bill as a template for Jesus. At best, they're evidence that Gods were born of other Gods and performed miracles.

I expect, being Gods, that's probably a given.

If you're looking for the overall source for Christ's life - then the Old Testament prophets is where you want to concentrate your search.

Horus should not be included in any list seeking a link between Jesus and ancient religions. He cannot be referred to outside the cultural context within which his mythology developed.
The attributes assigned to Horus in the op picture, as well as the list above, are inaccurate, more of cultural transplants which are based on an interpretation confined within values alien to those of AE and its culture.  The use of medicinal/magical stele referred to, was comparatively recent, the earliest examples dating to the Ramesside period.  The most famous example, the Metternich stele, dates back to the 30th dynasty. The Egyptian religion was ‘multi-layered’ having different versions of the same myth, according to geographic and historical origins. As for the concept of virginity, in the traditional sense – a human female who has not had sex with human or divine male – never had any ‘sacred’ connotations, or was accorded special puritanical value. Even if ‘virginity’ is limited to having sex with gods only, it still remains alien to the AE culture. Sometimes male gods were said to have impregnated human queens, but that was only to consolidate a claim to the throne, and on a case by case basis, example Hatshepsut’s claim. It was not meant to be incorporated in the religion but was rather a convenient political ploy. If having sex with only gods is implemented as standard, then all Egyptian goddesses were virgins! I am not aware of any mention of a goddess having sex with a human in AE mythology. Egyptians had gusto for life, their goddesses were ‘mother goddesses’, not virgins, just check the earlier versions of the conception of Horus.
The modus operandi of these stelae was rooted in sympathetic magic. Horus was not believed to walk among mortals healing their sick. He was incarnated every rule in the person of the pharaoh, the ‘living Horus’, and the pharaoh was not expected to heal the sick during his life, nor after death for most of them. The ‘3 days dead then resurrected’ is not mentioned on the Metternich stele nor anywhere else, and crucifixion was never practiced in AE. The same applies to walking on water.

I agree with Tiggs' conclusion, a link or ‘similarity’ between Jesus and Horus could only be found by a lot of out of context ‘cut & paste’ leading to a result that totally lacks credibility.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

I don't read hieroglyhics, either. I know there is some doubt in serious-minded circles about whether Horus really died, and the story makes sense if he only seems to Isis to have died. Other "frantic parent" stories manage perfectly well with such doubt, like Jairus' daughter, and the healing power still gets credit, because the urgency of the predicament is unambguous.

Quote

It's not exactly stellar Messianic prophecy.

I don't think it's there for prophecy fulfilment. John develops a literary allusion between Jesus and sacrificial lambs, starting at 1: 29 and keeps it up. I am unsure that the underlying motivation for that is to prove anything, so much as to achieve a literary effect, a unifying image.

Reaching for that Psalm to continue the effect past the sacrifice, though, comes at a risk. Except that no bones were broken, there is nothing else about the method of Jesus' execution that corresponds with the Jewish ritual for the killing of the lambs. And, of course, there is no Jewish tradition of human sacrifice for any religious purpose.

John takes a risk of overplaying his hand. I think he has a reason for taking the risk, to make a rebuttal point. I can't exclude that maybe he just screwed up and went to the "sacrificial lamb" thing once too often, and for an awkward stretch. All in all, though, he strikes me as a pretty good writer, so I'm inclined to think something was at stake for him.

Quote

It's not like they dismembered his body and buried the parts in different places.

That is true. And pointing out that every bone is intact emphasizes just that difference. Being bitten venomously isn't much like scourging, mocking battery and crucifixion, either.

[Knight Of Shadows]

Setton, on 29 June 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

I see where your coming from but religion =/= lack of education. If you find any expert on a given religion, regardless of their own beliefs, they will give you much the same evidence, although they might interpret it differently. That's why it's important to make your own interpretations not just take anything as true, regardless of who says it. Just as an aside, we very rarely know anything to be right or wrong. The best we can usually do is say what is most likely.

Following on from the OP and Knight's posts:

Yes, Jesus' birthday was moved to 25.12 to coincide with older religious festivals so that kind of makes the fact that other Gods were meant to be born on that day self-explanatory.

The other thing I would say is that, just because stories associated with older divinities are also associated with Jesus, does not mean he did not exist. It does not even mean he didn't do those things. What better way to prove your divinity than to perform miracles out of legends?

Personally, I think he existed but was just a man with a very good message to pass on and people have attributed miracles to him since then.

thanks for clearing up the birth date issue

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 30 June 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

I don't read hieroglyhics, either. I know there is some doubt in serious-minded circles about whether Horus really died, and the story makes sense if he only seems to Isis to have died. Other "frantic parent" stories manage perfectly well with such doubt, like Jairus' daughter, and the healing power still gets credit, because the urgency of the predicament is unambguous.

I agree that the story would still work if Horus was on the verge of Death. It's certainly much easier for a modern-day audience to believe that removal of poison would only benefit a man who was "mostly dead", as Miracle Max would say.

Quote

I don't think it's there for prophecy fulfilment. John develops a literary allusion between Jesus and sacrificial lambs, starting at 1: 29 and keeps it up. I am unsure that the underlying motivation for that is to prove anything, so much as to achieve a literary effect, a unifying image.

Reaching for that Psalm to continue the effect past the sacrifice, though, comes at a risk. Except that no bones were broken, there is nothing else about the method of Jesus' execution that corresponds with the Jewish ritual for the killing of the lambs. And, of course, there is no Jewish tradition of human sacrifice for any religious purpose.

John takes a risk of overplaying his hand. I think he has a reason for taking the risk, to make a rebuttal point. I can't exclude that maybe he just screwed up and went to the "sacrificial lamb" thing once too often, and for an awkward stretch. All in all, though, he strikes me as a pretty good writer, so I'm inclined to think something was at stake for him.

Possibly. Perhaps it's as simple as that if his bones had been broken, then the Passover sacrifice would have been invalid.

Exodus 12:
46 It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

Numbers 9:
12 They must not leave any of it for morning or break any of it's bones.

Quote

That is true. And pointing out that every bone is intact emphasizes just that difference. Being bitten venomously isn't much like scourging, mocking battery and crucifixion, either.

Which is why I don't associate the two.

Edited by Tiggs, 30 June 2012 - 02:15 AM.
Added Exodus and Numbers quotes

[csspwns]

ZaraKitty, on 29 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

All religions borrow from each other. The only people that don't know that are religious people.

:3 purr

lol nice one

[csspwns]

Beckys_Mom, on 29 June 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

This is nothing personal to you Knight..but I have to figure something out.. is that just your opinion  or do you have actual evidence of that claim?....If that is not just an opinion you hold.. then I must ask you to back ALL of that up with actual evidence that atheists did all of it...  I am thinking you will have some trouble...I never can understand why atheist fall blame to every silly thing that is pointed out in ref to any religion......... The sec someone points out something that makes religions look daft   they blame...atheists  or some other  non suspecting folks ...pointing the finger at others is too easy.
So I say  prove it..present any shred of REAL hard evidence that atheists took it all to themselves to invent these stories   dating from  the greek gods  up to the Christian God... I am keen to see what you have and trust me ..i'll be looking for actual evidence...

Now please  note  - If it is just your opinion..then state so and we can leave it as just your chosen opinion, I will not agree with your opinion, but I can respect your right to hold it either way.........if not..then I would love to see real evidence to support that claim you just made..and it has to be from actual atheists..and no info from random Christian sites will work..I want real hard evidence from educated people ( like histories and scholars )  that confirms that it was really atheists that  invents these stories  and not the people who invented the religions.over time ...I hope you don't mind me asking.. Remember if it is just an opinion you have then no need to take it further..but if you have evidence.,. then I would like to see it.. that is all I am saying here.. Nothing personal to you Knight ..

It is a well know fact of human nature  that authors of books will pinch ideas from each other..Its been going on from the word go...Heck we even see it in movies and other programes.. you name it .. copy cats is the trend..has always been so ..for many things

got owned Knight of Shadows. no offense

[Majenta71]

It's true that ancient religions have similar points of truth that relate to Jesus' life, but the knowledge of what Jesus would be connected to and do was not born with Him.  It was known by He and God before He ever left Heaven to be born on this earth.  Isaiah prophesied that one of the signs that would accompany the Savior that God was going to send into the world, was that he would be born of a virgin, and he prophesied it hundreds of years before Jesus was ever born.  God has not kept the knowledge of what He was going to do, under 'lock and key'; to the contrary, He's made it available to anyone who seeks Him and desires to know Him.  Therefore, knowledge of what way-marks would accompany Jesus when He came to be born here, was revealed to many of the ancients, before some of them wandered away from God and perverted what they knew.  For instance, if you look into the religion of Nimrod, builder of Babel, there are direct similarities between some of his 'gods' and 'goddesses', and the principles of Christianity.  What many do not realize is that before Nimrod became the rebel he eventually was, he was close to God and had learned the principles that were going to accompany God's plan for salvation.  After he rebelled against God, he perverted some of those principles by incorporating them into the 'lives' of his gods and goddesses, and his perversion permeated the entire world.  This is the very topic of a book I've written, so I've done some research on it and found this to be very true.  The same is true of the ancient Egyptians and what historians believe was their 'religion'.  

The point many don't seem to get about real, genuine Christianity however, is that it's not a 'belief', it's a living relationship with a living God.  It wasn't 'born' 2,000 years ago, it's been around since God has been around, with many of the ancients learning bits and pieces of its truth, and either incorporating them into beliefs they formed, or trying to walk in the entirety of it.  Unfortunately, you know how it is, things get written and rewritten, and the longer the years they get passed down to us, the more chance there is of them getting perverted by others who came after.  That's why Christianity isn't just about what's written in the Bible, it's about who Jesus is.  He's not dead, He is alive, and He's talking to those any who seek Him.  God, as the Creator and Father of all, would be a lousy God and Father if He didn't communicate with His people during their lives on this earth, but it's their choice to seek Him if they want that relationship.  The point about these other beliefs that have similarities to real Christianity, isn't 'who is right and who is wrong', it's do they have that living relationship with God that enables their followers to walk and talk with Him today, or are they beliefs written on paper?